Post Your Comment

59 Comments

Komodo is a CPU that replaces Zambezi. It does not have DX11 IGP. So that should be a "No" in that category. It is not an APU.

In the "Socket" category, both Trinity and Komodo will use some form of Socket FM infrastructure. AMD currently refers them as Socket FMx (where x = 1, 2, 3, etc). It doesn't mean that both will use the same socket.

However there is one issue - Komodo will go for AM3+ OR FM1, it is VERY unlikely AMD would go for another socket in 2012.

And since there is no PCIe in AM3+ while also no IGP on FM1 chip ... it is more likely they go for FM1 with Komodo actually having Display controller but not having a GPU - the same as some embedded Brazos parts today.

Last (sensible) option is for AMD to go FM1 with the same setup as Lynnfield.Reply

Nothing you said in this makes sense. AM3+ has PCIe, There isn't an IGP on the chipset for FM1 because no CPU in that socket would be missing it, and Brazos has a barely capable IGP, (40SP unit?) but it isn't just some 2d display controller.Reply

I don't see any GPU on the slide TimCh provided (and do read the fine print).Anyway there is only 1 botched slide with GPU and 8 cores and if you think about it, it makes no sense.Why have Sepang with 10 and Komodo with 8,it would be a waste of time and money and there would be no reason to have a different name for it,instead of Trinity.Also how big would the chip be with 8 cores and GPU,even if they drop the L2 cache and why add a GPU to a chip adressing the high end where most don't need it (and make the same mistake as Intel using the HD 3000 for K chips).Reply

'Also how big would the chip be with 8 cores and GPU,even if they drop the L2 cache and why add a GPU to a chip adressing the high end where most don't need it (and make the same mistake as Intel using the HD 3000 for K chips).'

well, 8 core bulldozer(4 module) is going to be over 300sq. mm. larger than llano(on 32nm) but smaller than thuban(45nm).i would guess that 8 meg of L3 cache that the 8 core bulldozer will have would take up 2/3 as much room as the current gpu in llano. so, quite a lot of space.so you're right, it would be a mistake to have a full sized gpu......maybe ANY gpu until gpu computing really takes off.Reply

Just an FYI, while it is true that Insight Control is required for power capping a cluster of Rackmount (DL) servers, you get Dynamic Power Capping withing a single c7000 chassis today for free.

So for Clusters of 16 servers in the same chassis, you don't need IC licenses to see a pretty big benefit. When one server needs more power, the other servers can all be throttled back slightly to let the one burst and still get the workload done, like you mentioned.

DPC in blade chassis also has 3 different settings.One is Average Load for ThermalsTwo is Average Power Draw (80% rule on individual circuits)Three is Maximum Power Draw (Do Not Exceed - Circuit protection)So you can not only unlock excess capacity with the Max Draw setting being lower than faceplate value, but you can also tune the other values to hit the appropriate thermal values for the DC.

I've heard there will be an Insight Control powered Multi-chassis DPC coming next year as well. And for those familiar with HP gear, Insight Control licenses, when purchased in 8/16 packs along side a new chassis are only like $50 more per server than iLO Advanced which alot of people already purchase. With normal Enterprise discounts the gap can be even smaller.

Actually, I wrote that part. I have fixed it now along with a few other minor edits. I added that the latest word appears to be October release (just saw it in my RSS today) and I also added a (?) to the Komodo's IGP as it seems to be uncertain.

"According to leaked product positioning slides, Zambezi is aimed to fight against Intel's Core i5 and i7 lineups. Zambezi will feature up to eight cores, which is twice as many as i7-2600(K)'s four cores. AMD said that they won't join the Hyper-Threading club and they will deliver as many physical cores as Intel delivers physical and virtual cores combined. It looks like AMD is keeping their word, though they're only delivering half as many "FP/SSE cores". "

With hyperthreading and now Bulldozer's double integer core/shared FPU design, core counts are becoming increasingly a difficult metric to compare. It's important to note that while Bulldozer has doubled the number of integer cores compared to Istanbul, each integer core is actually weaker since Bulldozer only uses 2 non-symmetric ALUs and 2 AGUs compared to 3 symmetric ALUs and 3 AGUs in Istanbul. Perhaps other architectural efficiencies can make up the difference, but I wouldn't be surprised if clock-for-clock each of Bulldozer's integer cores is slightly slower than Istanbul's. I believe Sandy Bridge's integer performance is clock for clock better than Istanbul, so Bulldozer likely need very well threaded code for it's doubled integer cores to shine.

FPU resources look to be be beefed up from 3 units in Istanbul to 4 units in Bulldozer. Compared to Sandy Bridge, Intel's big advantage is native 256-bit AVX units compared to Bulldozer which only has 128-bit FP/SSE resources and needs to split 256-bit AVX instructions halving performance. So if Intel can convince developers to quickly adopt 256-bit AVX, Sandy Bridge should have a pretty large SIMD advantage.Reply

dude, you just sound like a horrified Intel fanboy. "convince developers to adopt 256bit AVX). Then what about FMA3 and FMA4 which intel doesn't even have.....

A single BD Module can handle a 256bit AVX or can deside to split into 2 x 128 for each core . It is a decision from AMD to go that way just like intel decides to have a 256bit full for a PH + HT core..... 2 x 256 logic would just need more die space without usage, just like the choice to go for 2 ALU/AGU while the usage of 3 is almost no gain in server loads besides benchmarking....

While the FPU 128+128 might be a bit slower we are talking here about perhaps 2-3% since all other parts like cache and memory are shared for a single module and very neglictable difference unless you are a fanboy which is obvious.Reply

I believe Bulldozer supports FMA4, but not FMA3 due to Intel flip-flopping on which one they'll support at the last minute breaking commonality. While FMA4 is a great capability to have, you pointing out that Intel doesn't have it is the concern. AVX could see faster adoption because it's supported by both Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge.

"While the FPU 128+128 might be a bit slower we are talking here about perhaps 2-3% since all other parts like cache and memory are shared for a single module and very neglictable difference unless you are a fanboy which is obvious."

I mention AVX performance, because I'm under the impression that Bulldozer gangs it's two 128-bit FMACs together to do 1 AVX per module per cycle while Sandy Bridge has 3x256-bit AVX units per physical core. Sandy Bridge's AVX units are non-symmetric and there are no doubt other factors that will impact performance so it won't be a 3x performance difference, but I'd think it'd be more than 2-3% given the big difference in raw processing resources.Reply

my 2-3% was only the difference between a single 256 vs 2 x 128, not against the intel part... lets see first how much AVX will be really used and how much will end up being 128 bit... doesn't mean something which is 256bit is always better then 128bit.Reply

I believe I heard once that Intel's implementation can execute either one 128-bit or one 256-bit instruction per clock. Bulldozer's fused implementation may give up on AVX throughput, but only AVX.Reply

'It's important to note that while Bulldozer has doubled the number of integer cores compared to Istanbul, each integer core is actually weaker since Bulldozer only uses 2 non-symmetric ALUs and 2 AGUs compared to 3 symmetric ALUs and 3 AGUs in Istanbul.'

why does everyone get hung up on this? yes, phenom had 3 ALUs and 3 AGUs. big deal! it could only complete 3 instructions per clock- any combination of ALU and AGU instructions but no more than 3. so how often could it process 3 ALUs consecutively?AMD has said that removing the 3rd AGU won't hurt performance and core 2, nehalem, and sandy bridge all have 2 AGU's.Bulldozer can complete 4 instructions per clock- same as core 2, nehalem and sandy bridge. granted, the all have 3 ALU's available, but how often is the extra one used?Reply

Got kids Phenom II X6 1055T based PC for their games like GTA and just for fun ran on it some scientific FP-oriented tests - parallel algebra codes and some single-core ones.Was shocked that at its 2.8GHz stock clock it is twice faster then my overclocked to 4GHz Intel processors. Is this what you guys get too? Kind of contradicting to all these game- and office-oriented and benchmarks where Intel is always on the top.

So i'm waiting for these 8-core 32nm chips in the hope to drive them to 4.5 GHZ and get additional factor of 2

Currently I am on a Sandy Bridge 2500k and in the last year I've been on a i7 920 a 1055T, and a few $60 amd cheapies. As far as I am concerned they are all good. I didn't notice night and day improvements like I did when I moved to the A64 and Core2. So I think we are sort of at a ceiling limit right now (excepting specific tasks) where just about any new cpu is good enough.Reply

it is possible that your tests are using the x87 FPU. The Phenom can process up to 3 instructions per cycle out of order, while the P4 can hardly sustain one FP per cycle.

Parallel, multithreaded software is of course much faster on a 6-core than a single P4 core :-).

And it would be very hard to find a benchmark where P4 at 4 GHz is faster than a Phenom II 2.8 GHz. I can not imagine that anyone has published one. The P4 has a much slower memory interface (very high latency vs Phenom IMC), much smaller caches (16 KB vs 64 KB L1) and is outmatched in every aspect of FP processing power (64 vs 128 SIMD, Tripple fast x87 FPU vs single slow one) ... Reply

Amazing was that performance increase by factor of two was per CPU of course. The whole 6-core not overclocked AMD CPU was 2.42/0.50 or almost 5 times faster then 2-core overclocked to 3.8GHz Intel E8400!

Here are the numbers for the parallel algebra (you can download the test code from equation dot com or i have it too for different compilers) for Intel and AMD in seconds when i switch ON different amount of cores

Of course, none of that really tells us much, because we don't know how the application was compiled or what optimizations are in place. There's only one 64-bit compiled version but there are four 32-bit compiled versions. Let's just see what happens with the 32-bit versions on the QX6700 for a second:

What does that tell us? As expected, the Intel compiler version is the fastest in 32-bit mode. What's more, the gfortran 32-bit version is the slowest on Intel. Since the only 64-bit version is from gfortran, it would appear that a 64-bit Intel version would come in around twice as fast. That's only speculation based on the 32-bit compiled executables, but given your above numbers it looks like you're probably using the 64-bit version. (If not, why does my 3.2GHz quad-core outperform your 3.8GHz dual-core when looking at the 32-bit Intel speeds?)

Anyway, there are certain types of code that AMD does quite well at running, but overall I'd say it's clear that Intel's Nehalem/Lynnfield/Sandy Bridge CPUs are significantly faster than the Phenom II X6 offerings.Reply

Idk, after years of AMD cpu domination, Intel was more than happy to let everyone talk about Conroe, benchmark it to the public. So much so that it drove up prices of the things when they finally were released.

The reverse is true now, and I just don't see the same enthusiasm from AMD on Bulldozer. Maybe these 8-cores will be on par with 2600K ?? But Intel is still holding onto 6-core Sandy Bridge.

Me thinks AMD has another Phenom on its hands. Big, low clock speeds, weaker than expected performance. Eventually, AMD is going to have to improve the performance of it's cores, not just keep adding more crappy ones.Reply

i think it's quite clear to everyone that amd went on a whole new level with this design, soo much so that it is even hard to understand how much core the processor actually has. like JF amd said people buy processors not "cores". so if bulldozer die size is smaller than a sandy bridge and use less or equal transistors then amd made the better processor. what we have to look at now is not cores anymore amd could have split 1 large core into 3 instead of 2 and we would be hearing the same arguments, about 3 core vs a single core. what we need to watch is how both companies used the real estate of the die, and who used less and accomplish more made the better cpu.and i fully expect an intel processor to copy bullldozer in the near future. cross licensing sucksReply

Cliff notes:1. Don't run the Intel 320 SSD in any machines that needs perfect reliability or any kind of mission critical software.2. Back up all data on current drives immediately.

I post it here so maybe some Anandtech guy can address the issue since they seem to be unaware of this for some months reported issue.

Concearning reliability of the the Intel SSD 320 (and perhaps the 510 too).

Huge number of complete data losses for users.Intel finally admits the problem exists.

Power failure, instant shut downs causes the issue.

No reliable information about if it is a firmware issue, design problem(bad design), hardware problem(controller etc, at least running this spec).A simple firmware update is most likely to solve the issue eventually

Erik

--------------------------------------

"“Be wary of the new Intel SSD 320 series. Currently, there's a bug in the controller that can cause the device to revert to 8MB during a power failure. AFAIK they have not yet publicly announced it, and won't have a firmware fix ready for release until the end of July.”"

It's what TDP stands for, and I don't think it's in the article. (it's the amount of heat, measured in watts, that must be dissipated by the heatsink to keep the CPU operating safely). I had to stop reading on page two and leave AT.com to go find the answer. Please explain your acronyms... it's really annoying to read about something and feel too dumb for the article. , and it's never a good idea to give readers a reason to leave your website. :)Reply

The sad part about the reality we currently face is there really hasn't been a large increase in CPU performance since the Nethalem launch nearly three years ago.

AMDs release of the Phenom II line kept them in it, as they were able to offer lesser performance, but at far less cost. SandyBridge changed all that. While again, it doesn't really perform that much better than the high end Nethalem's launched three years ago, or that much worse than the 990x, it is far cheaper than those $999 price tags. SandyBridge by performing as good as the old high end chips and being priced much lower really eroded any reason at all to buy/build an AMD based system at the enthusiast level.

Bulldozer, with a street price reported to be around $300 needs to be faster than SandyBridge and needs to launch sooner in Q3, rather than in Q4 (October). If it is only on parity, then the reality would be that AMD was finally able to develop a chip that matches the performance Intel had three years ago. With Ivy Bridge, the successor to the high end throne, set to ascend in Q1 2012 would it then take AMD another three years to match that performance? Seems as though they are falling further and further behind. But, this is all speculation. I suppose we'll see what tomorrow brings.Reply

We never said "at the same power level". Bobcat is much faster than Atom, but Core 2 beats Bobcat silly, and Core 2010/2011 are even faster. Bobcat is fine for low power, low performance, decent multimedia; that's not the same as being good for general use.Reply

Why even go to Intel for the comparison? Bobcat loses to the old STARS cores too doesn't it? Athlon II, Phenom II, Llano? Generally it's assumed that comparisons are done between competing products for a given market or price point.

What sense would there be in reviewing an Intel Atom chip, and then taking the time to say, well, sadly the Intel Atom does not have as good single-threaded performance as the Core i7 990X Super Jeebus Edition. Or that the Radeon 5450 does not offer superior graphics performance to the GTX 590? Well, duh!Reply

Core 2 ULV (all the CULV stuff from early 2010) already offered us power levels similar to Bobcat, with better per-core performance. What it didn't offer was the GPU side of things, which is why Optimus was useful. As the article here states, "single-threaded performance is still a sore spot for Bobcat compared to other architectures", it seemed fairly obvious that we're discussing Bobcat in the greater market, not just Bobcat in low-power uses. And yet, Mino went and complained regardless.

So when Mino says that "to my knowledge the is exactly ZERO other architectures with faster single-threaded performance at the power level Bobcat plays at", he is either uninformed, ignorant, or totally biased. CULV way back in late 2009 offered 42% higher single-threaded performance than Bobcat in early 2011, with lower power requirements. Core 2010 ULV improved performance further at the cost of power requirements: it's 49% faster but uses 6% to 30% more power than Bobcat. Either way, performance per watt both CULV and i3-ULV do better than Bobcat. They also have much worse IGPs, so it's not a complete loss for AMD.

Even so, architecturally I don't think Bobcat has a lot of legs. Going quad-core does nothing for single-threaded performance, and multi-threaded performance on a low power design is sort of silly to discuss. It's the same problem I have with ARM: sure, they can do low power really well, but what happens when you need more performance? For many tasks, a 2.0GHz dual-core ARM is no worse than a 2.0GHz quad-core ARM, and in raw computer performance even Atom is likely faster than ARM right now.

Windows 8 running on ARM is going to be interesting; can the chip even handle a full OS like Windows? Will it do so while still offering good battery life? I'd say Bobcat is the bare minimum performance we need for a full Windows OS to work well, and Bobcat is at least twice as fast as Atom. Will ARM manage to equal Bobcat next year? I wouldn't bet on it, but maybe I'll be wrong.Reply